De Anza is not a smoke-free campus. Every student who knows there is a no smoking policy on campus is also aware that few, if any, smoking students abide by it.
But now a crackdown is impending. Staff and faculty members have been attempting to reduce smoking violations since summer, and the efforts have gone beyond simply reminding smokers to keep well clear of doorways. The Foothill – De Anza Board of Trustees approved the procurement of additional tables and umbrellas for designated smoking areas, as well as increased signage delineating the areas, in late summer.
But a planned facilities meeting that would have set the ball rolling on these reforms never took place, and as a result, the plans to politely coax smokers into confining themselves turned into a turf war between smokers and enforcers. Smokers were asked repeatedly to relocate to the ashtrays – arranged on a mound of dirt at the far end of a parking lot and devoid of seating. Needless to say, they remained firmly in place in their non-designated smoking areas.
But the battle has only just begun. Last week Naomi Kitajima of Foothill’s Health Services sent out a questionnaire to district students surveying their preferences of smoking, zoning and enforcement, apparently intending to take student opinion into consideration in the reform.
De Anza is obviously a smoking campus, and the overwhelming majority of students who smoke are making a clear statement about their regard for the signs that claim otherwise. Nonsmokers, on the other hand, are generally not particularly vocal or active in their support of enforcing this alleged ban. There are always exceptions, but my understanding is that most nonsmokers are not yet making large detours to avoid smokers, or themselves enforcing the ban.
Perhaps the notion that De Anza can be a smoke-free campus is backwards – imagine the time, effort, and money it would take to get every single smoker on campus to either quit smoking or leave campus for their smokes.
The other problem is that nobody likes being marginalized, and everyone who feels that way is bound to become more resistant to the efforts of those infringing upon their freedom. Nonsmokers feel that their right to clean air is being slighted, while smokers feel that they are being unjustly criminalized for their habits.
The key is diplomacy. Nobody wants to be told they’re being rude, but everyone feels somehow rubbed the wrong way when they have to walk through clouds of smoke or when they get yelled at for trying to take a cigarette break in peace.
So why did we scrap the plan to make smoking zones more appealing? Instead of exiling smokers, let’s invite them to a place they want to take their cigarette breaks, not banish them to the far corners of C lot. In return, nonsmokers won’t be banished from their walkways by smoke.
